https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=24648
Rachel Mant <dx-...@users.sourceforge.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
Resolution|INVALID |---
--- Comment #8 from Rachel Mant <dx-...@users.sourceforge.net> ---
I've been re-examining, including testing that GCC 5.1.0 does the right thing
even with -O0 (it does, expected result ensues). This is entirely about
inlining (implied and explicit). The following are my findings based on the
standard:
This is two bugs in one.
Your linker is failing to apply the rules on return type overloads correctly
(it is an error, not no diagnostic).
A function defined entirely inside a class/struct/union definition, whether
it's a member function or a non-member friend function, is always inline. Which
is exactly what I've done.
If you say inline explicitly, Clang does the right thing. If you do not
implied-inline should be applied but Clang fails to. This is true regardless of
optimisation level.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
llvm-bugs mailing list
llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
